Ross Perot returned to the airwaves Sunday night, continuing his endless presidential campaign and spreading his egomaniacal brand of Orwellian doublespeak. What makes Perot even more frightening than Big Brother, though, is that when Boss Ross describes his demagogic and self promoting propaganda as "democracy," the crowd goes wild.

Billed as a "national referendum," the survey Perot conducted during his Sunday television appearance and in inserts in TV Guide this week was a cynical exercise in political thought control. Relying on responses delivered voluntarily by mail or by phone ensures that the "poll" will be anything but a representative referendum.

The questions themselves reek of bias, manipulation and subliminal persuasion. One question, for example, argues, "If our government wants the American people to pay more taxes, should it provide leadership by example-all sacrifice begins at the top-by cutting Congress's and the President's salaries by 10 percent and reducing their retirement plans to bring them in line with those of the American people?" It takes tremendous audacity to should such biased filth in the language of democratic poll-taking, and by doing so, Perot mocks the process he claims to promote.

Nonetheless, Perot's efforts have inspired me, and I have come up with some questions to supplement his survey:

1. If his disdain for lobbyists is sincere, should Perot provide leadership by example by ceasing his relentless lobbying efforts and dismantling United We Stand, his self-promoting lobbying organization?

Lobbyists spend large amounts of money on propaganda intended to win support for their agendas and to intimidate lawmakers into voting in their favor. Perot spent $500,000 on his Sunday television appearance and $1,90,000 for his TV Guide survey, both of which are clearly intended to produce at least the illusion that enormous masses of people support his agenda. His promise to forward the results of this survey to Congress and the President, coming on the heels of his recent threat to legislators that "I can deliver" votes, is nothing short of an attempt to intimidate politicians into submitting to his proposals.

With the obvious difference that Perot does not actually provide funds for political campaigns (yet), his activities are nearly indistinguishable from those of the lobbyists he so detests.

2. If Perot believes he and other U.S. lobbyists should be allowed to "educate" the government, should foreign lobbyists be afforded the same privilege?

His proposal to prevent lobbies from financing political campaigns is worth considering. But while he wants to limit U.S. lobbyists to educational and informational activities, he would ban foreign lobbyists altogether.

U.S. lawmakers could hardly be hurt by the additional information foreign lobbyists provide. Preventing the input of foreign lobbyists could pave the way for xenophobic and isolationist policy by making it possible to ignore international perspectives.

3. Having insisted in Congressional testimony on March 2 that the people "want details, not soundbites," should Perot abandon his hollow rhetoric in favor of specific proposals?

He criticized President Clinton's state of the union address, saying it "only laid out the outlines. He needs to give up the details now." In fact, Clinton has presented his proposals in refreshingly honest detail.

If Perot seriously believes spending should be cut beyond Clinton's proposals, he should accept the president's challenge and provide specifics. Until then, his complaints are meaningless and risk diminishing support for Clinton's program when no viable alternative has even been suggested.

4. As a relentlessly vocal advocate of democracy, and as a presumably firm believer in the ability of the people to run their country, should Perot trust the voters to reject ineffective leaders?

In his presentation on Sunday, Perot proposed that a term-limitation law automatically take effect if legislators fail to meet preordained deficit reduction goals. His idea, though unique in its style, is plagued by the same flaw as other proposals like it.